@classicrockfan
Interesting topic.
I find that the technical explanation of "observable" phenomena can take the following path(s):
Nothing observable happened. Therefore every explanation to validate it is BS.
Something did happen. The entirety of supportive explanations are valid.
Something did happen. But, our attempts to describe what we observed are invalid.
The case above, it’s an automatic reflex to reject all of the explanations if some of the explanations are invalid -- in OUR view even though there is a (growing) body of evidence to show something is real here. Taking an example of an individual finding a mere 20% of the talking points to be "true", that means that the vast majority of the details are not true (in their opinion). What about the other 20%? Do we reject the premise entirely even though there are proven elements to the premise?
I find it interesting, that groups of people with pedigrees as long as their arms can reach totally opposite conclusions on many subjects; some a matter of life or death. So, it comes down to motivation. What’s in it for them?
Are they trying to save the world from bad sound? Trying into make a buck? Attempting to maintain their SGR (Smartest Guy in the Room) status? Just enjoying lively conversation? Every fiber of their being is wrapped around this, and the penalties for failure are severe? (job, status, potential prison sentence ...). And, yes, there can be multiple motives -- save the world from bad sound AND make a living in the process. These are not always contradictory but can be rather complimentary.
The atomic expansion theory states that all atoms in the universe are expanding at the same rate, so we don’t observe anything changing. Right? Wrong? I don’t know. It’s well above my pay grade. But, it’s fun to watch the really smart guys on both sides of the issue duke it out. With no clear winner.